NOTE: If you wish to join this meeting by conference call, please contact the Commission at 605-773-3201 by 5:00 p.m. on September 23, 2002.

NOTE: Notice is further given to persons with disabilities that this Commission meeting is being held in a physically accessible place. If you have special needs, please notify the Commission and we will make all necessary arrangements.

AGENDA OF THE COMMISSION MEETING

Administration

1. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 5, 2002. (Staff: Mary Giddings.)

The Commission has received 1416 consumer contacts during 2002. 82 of the complaints were received since the September 5, 2002, meeting. So far the Commission has resolved 1340 informal consumer complaints.

Complainant states that on May 8, 2002, she contacted McLeod to cancel her service that day since she had switched her service to a new provider. When Complainant spoke to the McLeod representative, she was told not to pay her bill because it was for service during the upcoming month when she would be with her new provider. When Complainant received another bill from McLeod, Complainant had a 3-way conversation with her new provider and McLeod to clear up the billing problem. The McLeod representative said that the billing would be taken care of. During this conversation, the Complainant requested that a recording be added to her old number announcing what her new number was. When this was added to the line, it took one month for the announcement to be placed on the line and the announcement was giving out an incorrect new phone number. Complainant continued to get billings from McLeod and as of July 24, 2002, the announcement was still giving out an incorrect new phone number. Complainant feels that she should be compensated because of her frustration regarding this matter.

Complainant states that in May 2002, she requested phone service from McLeod. McLeod informed her that the service would be connected on June 3, 2002. When service was not connected, McLeod stated that the order was lost and that service would be connected on June 7, 2002. Service was not connected on June 7th. On or about June 10th, McLeod told her that service was connected and that she would have to pay an additional $95.00 to have the technician connect service to the apartment. Complainant informed McLeod to cancel the service request as she would be changing providers. Complainant received a bill from McLeod and talked to a McLeod representative informing her not to pay the bill and that he would take care of it. Complainant received another bill from McLeod and the charges were not removed. Complainant states that she never had dial tone service with McLeod and the charges should be removed.

Complainant states that in May 2002, he requested service from Qwest to his residence. Although the service was connected by Qwest, he did not have dial tone service in his residence. Because he felt Qwest would be unable to fix the problem in an expedient amount of time, Complainant requested that the service be disconnected. Complainant was told by the Qwest representative that the account would be closed and that there would be no charges billed to the Complainant. Complainant has since been billed by Qwest for the service. Complainant requests that Qwest remove all charges from his account.

TODAY, if the above matters are resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaints and close the dockets?

Complainant states that she signed up for McLeod service he service was not connected in a timely manner and she was billed for monthly service when McLeod was not her provider. McLeod informed her that she would be receiving a $20.00 check for the connection fee. Complainant never received the check. Complainant also states that her long distance rates are incorrect. Complainant feels McLeod owes her compensation for all the stress she has had to endure over this situation and that she has not been compensated for the billing mistakes. Complainant was contacted by staff and given time to amend her filing to give a full, clear and reasonably certain statement of facts giving rise to the complaint pursuant to ARSD 20:10:01:08:01 and failed to do so.

TODAY, if the above matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?

On April 1, 2002, the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) received a complaint filed by Patsy Allyn, Peever, South Dakota (Complainant), against Otter Tail Power Company (Otter Tail) regarding billing and tree damage. On April 2, 2002, the complaint was faxed to Otter Tail. Pursuant to ARSD 20:10:01:09, Otter Tail was notified that it must satisfy the complaint or file an answer in writing with the Commission by April 22, 2002. On April 22, 2002, the Commission received an answer from Otter Tail. On April 26, 2002, the Commission received a response from Complainant. On April 30, 2002, the Commission received a Stipulated Agreement from Otter Tail. On May 2, 2002, the Commission received a Motion to Continue Hearing to Allow Meter Testing Pursuant to Tariff and for an Order Requiring Complainant to Remove a Lock from Respondent's Meter Socket from Otter Tail. On May 3, 2002, the Commission received a Stipulated Agreement from Complainant. On May 9, 2002, a regularly scheduled meeting, the Commission considered Otter Tail's motion. The Commission voted to grant Otter Tail's motion to continue further proceedings in the matter pending testing of its meter pursuant to its tariff and to allow Otter Tail access to its meter. On August 12, 2002, the Commission received a Report on Electric Meter Test from Martin C. Bettmann, Staff Engineer, South Dakota Public Utilities Commission. The Commission finds that it has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to SDCL Chapters 1-26 and 49-34A, specifically 49-34A-2, 49-34A-2.1, 49-34A-3, 49-34A-4, 49-34A-9, 49-34A-10, 49-34A-26, 49-34A-27, 49-34A-39, 49-34A-40, and 49-34A-58. A hearing was held on September 5, 2002, in Room 412 of the State Capitol Building. In her complaint, Complainant alleges that Otter Tail committed the following acts, errors, practices or omissions:

On August 16, 2002, the City of Fort Pierre and West Central Electric filed for approval an agreement with respect to territorial service areas. The joint agreement provides that the following territory shall become the service territory of the City of Fort Pierre: the South one-half of the Southeast one-forth of Section 17, and the South one-half of the Southwest one-forth of Section 16, Township 5 North, Range 31 East of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Stanley County, South Dakota, and land immediately to the east thereof, extending to the Missouri River, which provides the eastern boundary of said area, the foregoing parcels lying adjacent and immediately north of the north boundary line of the city limits of the City of Fort Pierre.

On September 9, 2002, the Frontier Road Homeowners Association (Homeowners) filed a Petition to Intervene as it believes that "it is discriminatory and at least facially conspiratorial for the City and West Central to agree in advance, before annexation, that the very area that City sought to annex in 1999 will now be penalized in the future if the area is annexed by City."

TODAY, shall the Commission grant the Homeowners' Petition to Intervene?

On August 23, 2002, the Commission received a filing from NorthWestern Energy for approval of revision to its Natural Gas tariff. The filing would revise the fuel retention percentage of the Gas Transportation Tariff General Terms and Conditions which call for the retention percentage to be adjusted annually.

TODAY, shall the Commission approve the tariff with the updated retention percentage?

On May 31, 2001, the Commission received a Stipulation for Procedure on Remand entered into by GCC License Corporation (GCC) and the South Dakota Independent Telephone Coalition (SDITC). In the cover letter, SDITC stated that the Stipulation was "reached by the parties to facilitate a decision by the Commission consistent with the South Dakota Supreme Court's remand of the case for a determination regarding the remaining public interest issue." A stipulation between SDITC and GCC was approved by the Commission. On July 26, 2001, SDITC and GCC provided oral arguments before the Commission on the public interest remand issue. A September 7, 2001, meeting, the Commission found that it was in the public interest to designate GCC as an ETC in the rural telephone exchanges listed in the Stipulation, subject to certain conditions. On August 29, 2002, the Commission received the compliance filing from Western Wireless (formerly known as GCC).

On December 5, 2001, staff attorney Kelly Frazier petitioned the Commission to issue an order to show cause as to why BuyersOnLine should not be found in violation of state law for selling telecommunication services without a certificate of authority and failure to pay gross receipt taxes. This docket has been before the Commission on three prior occasions, December 12, 2001, January 2, 2002 and February 5, 2002. In each instance the company agreed to take steps requested by staff to avoid staff moving the Commission to issue an Order to Show Cause. The company agreed to file for a Certificate of Authority and did so in file TC02-013. Staff moved to have the application denied in TC02-013 at the July 23, 2002 meeting due to the company's failure to respond to data requests. Staff sent a letter on August 27, 2002 requesting that the company respond as to why staff should not move the Commission to issue an Order To Show Cause as a result of this dismissal and the company did not respond.

TODAY, shall the Commission issue an order to Show Cause as to why BuyersOnLine should not be found to be violation of state law?

On February 8, 2002, Telefyne Incorporated (Telefyne) has filed an application for registration as an alternative operator service provider in South Dakota. The applicant is a reseller which intends to offer intrastate alternative operator service. Telefyne was issued a Certificate of Authority to provide interexchange telecommunications services in South Dakota on July 27, 2001.

TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to Telefyne Incorporated?

On June 20, 2002, the Local Exchange Carriers Association filed tariff sheets to reflect the consolidation of Sancom, Inc. into Sanborn Telephone Cooperative and Sanborn Telephone Cooperative changed name of Santel Communications Cooperative, Inc. S&S Communications filed on July 19, 2002, withdrawing its intervene of July 9, 2002.

On July 25, 2002, the Commission received for approval a filing of an Agreement for Terms and Conditions for Interconnection, Unbundled Network Elements, Ancillary Services, and Resale of Telecommunications Services Provided by Qwest Corporation to Centel Communications, Inc. (Centel). According to the parties, the Agreement is a negotiated agreement and is made in order to set forth the terms, conditions, and prices under which Qwest will provide services for resale to Centel for the provision of local exchange services. Any party wishing to comment on the agreement may do so by filing written comments with the Commission and the parties to the agreement no later than August 14, 2002. Parties to the agreement may file written responses to the comments no later than twenty days after the service of the initial comments. The company does not have a certificate of authority to offer the services provided for in this proposed interconnection agreement and has not responded to staff's requests that the company either file an application for a certificate of authority or a waive the automatic 90 implementation of the 1996 Telecommunications Act and give a date for filing its application.

On August 14, 2002, the Commission received for approval a filing of the Unbundled Loops, Loop Mux Combination, Special Request Process, Bona Fide Request Process, and Single Point of Presence in the LATA Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation (Qwest) and Sprint Communications, L.P. (Sprint). According to the parties, this is an amendment to the negotiated interconnection agreement between Sprint and Qwest. The amendment adds terms and conditions for Unbundled Loops, Loop Mux Combination, Special Request Process, Bona Fide Request Process, and Single Point of Presence in the LATA. Any party wishing to comment on the agreement may do so by filing written comments with the Commission and the parties to the agreement no later than September 3, 2002. parties to the agreement may file written responses to the comments no later than twenty days after the service of the initial comments.

On September 11, 2002, Qwest Corporation filed changes to its Access Services Tariff. The purpose of the changes is to correct Pricing Flexibility USOC's for six transport rate elements. There are no rate changes proposed. Qwest requests an effective date as soon as possible.

TODAY, shall the Commission grant intervention to any parties who may have filed? AND if there are no interventions, shall the Commission approve the proposed tariff revisions?

On August 26, 2002, Citizens Telecommunications Company of Minnesota, Inc. (Citizens) provided information constituting Citizens' plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Citizens will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On August 30, 2002, Kennebec Telephone Company (Kennebec) provided information constituting Kennebec's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Kennebec will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On September 3, 2002, Dickey Rural Telephone Cooperative (Dickey Rural Cooperative) provided information constituting Dickey Rural Cooperative's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Dickey Rural Cooperative will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On September 3, 2002, Dickey Rural Communications, Inc. (Dickey Rural Communications) provided information constituting Dickey Rural Communications's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Dickey Rural Communications will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On September 3, 2002, Interstate Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc. (Interstate) provided information constituting Interstate's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Interstate will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On September 5, 2002, Beresford Municipal Telephone Company (Beresford) provided information constituting Beresford's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Beresford will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On September 5, 2002, Mount Rushmore Telephone Company and Fort Randall Telephone Company (Mt. Rushmore/Ft. Randall) provided information constituting Mt. Rushmore/Ft. Randall's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Mt. Rushmore/Ft. Randall will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On September 6, 2002, Baltic Telecom Cooperative and East Plains Telecom, Inc. (Baltic/East Plains) provided information constituting Baltic/East Plains' plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Baltic/East Plains will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On September 6, 2002, Jefferson Telephone Co., Inc. (Jefferson) provided information constituting Jefferson's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Jefferson will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On September 6, 2002, Western Telephone Company (Western) provided information constituting Western's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Western will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On September 6, 2002, Valley Telephone Company (Valley) provided information constituting Valley's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Valley will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On September 6, 2002, Splitrock Telephone Cooperative, Inc. and Splitrock Properties, Inc. (Splitrock Cooperative/Splitrock Properties) provided information constituting Splitrock Cooperative/Splitrock Properties' plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Splitrock Cooperative/Splitrock Properties will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On September 6, 2002, Santel Communications Cooperative, Inc. (Santel) provided information constituting Santel's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Santel will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On September 6, 2002, Great Plains Communications, Inc. (Great Plains) provided information constituting Great Plains' plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Great Plains will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On September 6, 2002, Brookings Municipal Telephone (Brookings) provided information constituting Brookings' plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Brookings will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On September 9, 2002, Heartland Telecommunications Company of Iowa d/b/a Hickory Tech (HickoryTech) provided information constituting HickoryTech's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that HickoryTech will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On September 9, 2002, James Valley Cooperative Telephone Company (James Valley) provided information constituting James Valley's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that James Valley will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On September 9, 2002, Red River Telecom, Inc. (Red River) provided information constituting Red River's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Red River will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On September 9, 2002, Faith Municipal Telephone Company (Faith) provided information constituting Faith's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Faith will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On September 9, 2002, Kadoka Telephone Company (Kadoka) provided information constituting Kadoka's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Kadoka will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On September 9, 2002, Union Telephone Company (Union) provided information constituting Union's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Union will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On September 9, 2002, Bridgewater-Canistota Telephone Company (Bridgewater) provided information constituting Bridgewater's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Bridgewater will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On September 9, 2002, Armour Independent Telephone Company (Armour) provided information constituting Armour's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Armour will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On September 9, 2002, Dakota Community Telephone, Inc. (Dakota) provided information constituting Dakota's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Dakota will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On September 9, 2002, Golden West Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc. (Golden West) provided information constituting Golden West's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Golden West will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On September 9, 2002, McCook Cooperative Telephone Company (McCook) provided information constituting McCook's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that McCook will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On September 9, 2002, Midstate Communications, Inc. (Midstate) provided information constituting Midstate's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Midstate will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On September 9, 2002, Roberts County Telephone Cooperative Association and RC Communications, Inc. (Roberts County and RC) provided information constituting Roberts County and RC's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Roberts County and RC will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On September 9, 2002, RT Communications (RT) provided information constituting RT's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that RT will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On September 9, 2002, Sioux Valley Telephone Company (Sioux Valley) provided information constituting Sioux Valley's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Sioux Valley will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On September 9, 2002, Stockholm-Strandburg Telephone Company (Stockholm) provided information constituting Stockholm's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Stockholm will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On September 9, 2002, Sully Buttes Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (Sully) provided information constituting Sully's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Sully will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On September 9, 2002, Tri-County Telcom, Inc. (Tri-County) provided information constituting Tri-County's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Tri-County will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On September 9, 2002, Valley Telecommunications Cooperative Assn., Inc. (Valley) provided information constituting Valley's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Valley will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On September 9, 2002, Vivian Telephone Company (Vivian) provided information constituting Vivian's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Vivian will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On September 9, 2002, West River Telecommunications (West River) provided information constituting West River's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that West River will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On September 9, 2002, West River Telecommunications (Mobridge) provided information constituting Mobridge's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Mobridge will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On September 10, 2002, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Telephone Authority (Cheyenne River) provided information constituting Cheyenne River's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Cheyenne River will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On September 11, 2002, WWC License LLC, a subsidiary of Western Wireless Corporation, verified that WWC License LLC will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On September 11, 2002, West River Cooperative Telephone Company (West River) provided information constituting West River's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that West River will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

On September 13, 2002, Three River Telco provided information constituting Three River Telco's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Three River Telco will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.

TODAY, shall the Commission grant intervention to any parties who may have filed? AND, shall the Commission provide a certification to the Federal Communications Commission and to the Universal Service Administration Company regarding the plan for the use of federal universal services support as proposed in each of the above dockets?

Announcements

1. A hearing will be held on October 15, 2002, in CN02-001 (Bullion), at 1:30 p.m., in the Dell Rapids City Hall.

2. The next regularly scheduled Commission meeting will be held October 17, 2002, at 1:30 p.m., in Room 412 of the State Capitol Building.